Minnesota CCR Pilot Study 

Lih-in W. Rezania, P.E.

Public Health Engineer

Drinking Water Protection

Minnesota Department of Health 

1
CCR Piloting Objectives

 Meet SDWA requirement to distribute CCR

 Seek methods that are more or equally effective in

communicating CCR information

 Evaluate/Compare CCR communication effectiveness 

 Cost/Waste reduction

 Familiarize residents with utility/community website

 Make CCR more accessible to the public

 Provide data for EPA’s CCR rule retrospective review

2
Participants

 Community Public Water Systems (CPWSs) serving a 

population of 10,000 or greater

 Cost saving incentive

 Required to individually distribute a paper copy CCR to their

customers

 CPWSs coordinate with MDH on delivery methods & 

timelines

 CPWSs assist MDH with post-CCR-delivery survey

 MDH provided postage-paid survey mailers

 CPWSs distributed surveys to customers

 Customers returned surveys to MDH for evaluation/analysis

3
Timeline for Year One

October 2011 October -

December 2011

January - May 2012 May - June 2012 June - July 2012 August - October

2012

MDH solicits 

participation 

from 86 CPWSs 

serving a 

population of 

10,000 or greater

CPWSs notify 

MDH of their

intent to 

participate and 

method of delivery 

CPWSs 

select/describe 

delivery method 

with cost-saving 

estimate 

MDH hosts group 

meetings, prepares

system-specific CCRs, 

postcard notice for

CPWSs

review/approval 

MDH designs/print s

post-CCR color-coded 

delivery survey

mailers: 

Yellow: web CCR 

notice 

Blue: traditional 

Green: email/e-bill 

MDH provides

postage paid postCCR-delivery survey 

mailers to CPWSs 

CPWSs distribute 

survey mailers

within 3 weeks of 

CCR/URL delivery 

MDH collects

returned surveys and 

compile results and 

findings

MDH prepares

report to EPA R5 

and 86 CPWSs

MDH prepares for

2

nd year pilot and 

provide assistance 

to new participants 

4
Delivery Method Options

1) Traditional delivery

2) URL notice distributed by postcard/newsletter/bill insert

 Internet address of the CCR website provided to customer

 Contact at CPWS for paper copy CCR requests

 Note applicable violation(s), MCL/AL exceedance, or SDWA

compliance status 

3) Email, e-bill, other forms of electronic delivery

 Residents to confirm the receipt of CCR e-Notice

 Housing office to release CCR to student/renter’s e-account 

5
 80 out of 86 CPWSs in the State participated, with these

delivery choices:

 Traditional: 38 

 CCR Notice with URL using postcard/newsletter/bill insert: 36

 Estimated savings per system: average $3,311; range $250 to $6,500 

 E-mail or e-bill combined with other methods: 6

 Estimated savings per system: average $2,429; range $0 to $18,000

 An internet search of the 2010 CCR/Water Quality Report

 Found CCR web-postings of all 86 systems

 E-delivery capability: e-account set up, e-bill, e-notice 

 Outreach capabilities: twitter, Facebook, city/utility blogs

CPWS delivery choices 

6
Draft CCR Templates Provided 

 www.health.state.mn.us/ccr

 User ID (case sensitive): commccr

 Password (case sensitive): CCRDraft!

 Retrieve

 Modify/Revise

 Post/Print

 Delivery: paper CCR, web-posting notice, e-CCR

7
Template for a Postcard URL Notice

2011 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT

City of XXXXXX, PWSID XXXXXXX

Dear Customers,

In an effort to Go Green your community water supply is now posting the 2011 

Drinking Water Report (CCR) on the web in lieu of sending the report to you 

by mail. 

• In 2011 your public water supply exceeded (insert MCL or AL exceedance 

information)

• Optional - In 2011 no contaminants were detected at levels that violated 

federal drinking water standards

Please go to: www.webaddresshere.com to view the CCR or annual water

quality report. You can also contact XXX/XXX-XXXX to request a paper copy

of the report.

8
City of North Mankato URL Notice 

9
A Multi-lingual Bill Insert URL Notice 

SPRWS meets all standards for drinking water quality. To read the full 

water quality report, go to www.stpaul.gov/waterquality . In an effort to 'go 

green,' paper copies are only available upon request at 651-266-6350.

 SPRWS satisface todos los estándares de calidad de agua potable. Por favor 

diríjase a www.stpaul.gov/waterquality para leer el reporte completo de calidad 

del agua. Copias en papeldel reporte solamente están disponibles llamando al 

651-266-6350.

 SPRWS waxay la kulantaa dhamaan heerarka u dagsan tayada biyaha la cabo. Si 

aad u akhrisid dhamaan warbixinta ku saabsan tayada biyaha, tag www

.stpaul.gov/waterquality. Waxaa la heli karaa koobiyada warqadaha marka laga

codsado tel . 651-266-6350.

 SPRWS ua tau zoo raws li tag nrho cov quag ntawm dej zoo haus. Xav nyeem

tsab ntawv ceeb toom tag nrho txog dej zoo haus, mus rau www

.stpaul.gov/waterquality. Tsuas muaj cov ntawv luam tawm yog nug txog 

ntawm 651-266-6350.

10
Multi-lingual typeface too small

11
CCR Post-Delivery Survey

 Post-delivery survey administered by MDH

 MDH printed 6000 color-coded surveys to be distributed 

by CPWSs

 1500 Blue (traditional paper CCR) 

 3000 Yellow (postcard/newsletter/bill insert including 

web-posting URL Notice) 

 1500 Green (email/e-bill with attachment or link to 

URL) 

 Aiming for a 95% statistically significant confidence level

 Six survey questions

 Tear-off & mail back to MDH as postage-paid postcards

12
Blue: Paper CCR

Yellow: CCR URL

Green: E-CCR

13

Map of customers who received CCR in 2012 via Paper, URL Notice, or E-CCR
14
15
Results of CCR Delivery Consumer 

Survey

E-mail/E-bill 

notification 

4%

Newsletter

Bill-insert

Postcard

16%

Paper CCR 

27%

Not sure

30%

Did not 

Receive 

23%

Q1 - CCR/CCR Notification

Received 

(N = 690)

Total # of surveys sent 5937

# of failed delivery 162

% Undeliverable 2.7%

# of completed surveys 690

% completed 11.9%

Population served 3,095,445

16
7

76 62

108

86

4

24

92

42

30

14

12

29

57

47

E-mail/E-bill

notification

Newsletter/bill

insert/postcard

Paper CCR Not sure Did not Receive

CCR Surveys Returned, by delivery method used, 

and consumer response to how CCR was received

(N= 690)

CCR URL Paper CCR email/ebill

17

Survey Response to Question 1
Results on Readership

Read the CCR

21%

Skim thru it

33%

Dispose w/o

reading it 

9%

N/A

37%

Q2- Readership - All Respondents

(N = 529) 

18

Survey Response to Question 2
51

72

17

117

44

71

15

33

17

34

14

49

Read the CCR Skim thru it Dispose w/o reading N/A

CCR Surveys Returned, by delivery method used, 

and consumer response to Readership

(N = 534)

Yellow-CCR URL Blue-Paper CCR Green-E-mail/E-bill

Survey Response to Question 2

19
Results on Comprehension

Yes

47%

No 

12%

N/A

41%

Q3 - Was CCR Clear & Understandable?

(N = 529) 

Survey Response to Question 3

20
Results on e-Bill Use 

143

94 102

92

53 47

139

8 12

Yes No Not sure

Q4: Is E-Bill Option Available?

124 103 112

63

74 55

125

22

12

Yes No Not sure

Q5: Will You View/Access CCR? 

Yellow-CCR URL Blue-Paper CCR Green-email/ebill

374

155 161

311

200

179

Yes No Not sure

E-Bill Option vs. E-Bill Use

(N = 690) 

Is E-bill Option Available?

Will You View/Access CCR?

21
Preferences on Delivery Methods 

Notification by 

postcard or bill 

insert/stuffer

11%

E-mail/E-bill 

notification 

36%

Paper CCR 

43%

Community

newsletter

local paper

10%

Preferred CCR Delivery Method 

(N = 841)

Survey Response to Question 6

22
56

138

194

37

22

40

132

39

18

124

37

4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

URL Notice via

postcard or bill

insert/stuffer

E-mail/E-bill

notification

Paper CCR Community

newsletter/local paper

Surveys Returned by Delivery Method Used 

and Response to Preferred Delivery Method

(N = 841) 

Yellow-CCR URL Blue-Paper CCR Green-email/ebill

Survey Response to Question 6

23
Comments on Preferred Methods

Paperless Paper

 Prefer the cheapest method

 E-mail or e-bill notification if 

it is labeled VERY CLEARLY

 Would be happy to click a 

link when paying bill on-line

 I want to know that my water 

is safe; won't spend much

time on it unless there is a 

problem

 Stop spending money on 

useless paper work!

 Use web, Facebook, twitters, 

and other social media! 

 I have no PC, do read all 

things that come thru mail 

 I have auto pay but no PC

 I receive e-bill but often don’t

read notices attached

 More likely to read it when it

is with items of interest like 

community fun events

 Emails are too easy to delete

 Attach to utility bill/invoice

 It’s adequate the way it is, no

more electronics! 

24
E-Delivery vs. Traditional

E-mail

E-bill 

notification 

2%

Newsletter

Bill- insert

postcard

12%

Paper CCR 

48%

Not sure

22%

Did not 

Receive 

16%

192 Survey Cards Returned for

Customers Who Were Sent Paper CCR 

E-mail

E-bill 

notification 

9%

Newsletter

Bill-insert

Postcard

8%

Paper CCR 

18%

Not sure

37%

Did not 

Receive 

28%

159 Survey Cards Returned for Customers

Who Were Sent CCR via Email or E-bill

25
Electronic vs. Traditional Delivery

Read the 

CCR

15%

Skim thru 

it

30%

Dispose 

w/o 

reading it 

12%

N/A

43%

E-mail/E-bill Readership

N = 114

Read the 

CCR

27%

Skim thru 

it

44%

Dispose 

w/o 

reading 

9%

N/A

20%

Paper CCR Readership

(N = 162) 

26

Survey Response to Question 2
Electronic vs. Traditional Delivery

Notification 

by postcard 

insert/stuffer

10%

E-mail/E-bill 

notification 

68%

Paper CCR 

20%

Community 

newsletter

local paper 

3%

Preferred CCR Delivery Method

N = 183

Notification 

by postcard 

insert/stuffer

9%

E-mail/E-bill 

notification 

17%

Paper CCR 

57%

Community 

newsletter

local paper 

17%

Preferred CCR Delivery Method

N = 233

27

Survey Response to Question 6
Somewhere in Between ... 

E-mail

E-bill 

notification 

2%

Newsletter

Bill-insert

Postcard

Paper CCR 23%

18%

Not sure

32%

Did not 

Receive 

25%

339 Survey Cards Returned for

Customers who were Sent CCR URL 

Notification 

by postcard 

bill-insert

Bill-stuffer

13%

E-mail

E-bill 

notification 

32%

Paper CCR 

46%

Community

newsletter

local paper

9%

Preferred CCR Delivery Method

N = 425

28
Conclusions

 Minnesota is CCR web-posting ready

 CPWSs used combined methods to deliver the CCR; 

they know their customers and what method(s) to use 

 Distinct preference to paper CCR or paperless CCR 

 Paper CCR has its place and will not be 100% replaced 

 Paperless CCRs are less likely to be read but offer cost

saving opportunities

 URL Notice (postcard/bill-stuffer) serves as a hybrid 

and provides an average saving of $3,311/system

29
What Next? 

 Same as year-one without the post-delivery survey

 Expand participation to smaller CPWSs , pop. <10,000

 Provide better guidance and URL-Notice examples

 Verify URL link provided on CCR Certification Forms

 Enter URLs onto http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/ccr/

 Refer inquiries to http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/ccr/

 A low cost win-win 

30
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/ccr/

31
Update/Enter PWS’s CCR URL 

32
Lih-in W. Rezania

651-201-4661

Lih-in.rezania@state.mn.us